Talk:SS Black Osprey/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A few minor inconsistencies. Please choose on of the typographical varieties of "New York – Rotterdam" and "Baltimore–Antwerp". Why are some abbreviations encapsulated in small, and other regular size? This is a violation of the Mos, that also advises against periods—in particular where other non-punctuated abbreviations are used (such as the use of U.S. in this text).

   • Dash spacing fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
   • I've always followed the rule that acronyms or initialisms of four or more characters should be in small caps to avoid overwhelming the surrounding text. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
   • Similarly, because the article is written in American English, I've used the more common "U.S." (with periods) for that abbreviation only. If there are any consistencies from my I intent, I'm happy to make changes. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   If you insist this is within the realm of the MoS, it is fine for me. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   One edit? Impressive.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A few small MoS details and the article will pass—put on hold on the mean time.

   My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Passed. Congratulations with another Good Ship. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)